Project Online Migration to Planner: What Transfers

A Project Online migration to Planner Premium keeps your task list, assignments, and finish-to-start dependencies. It does not keep baselines, the enterprise resource pool, portfolio rollups, stage gates, or the OData feed your Power BI reports run on. Those four gaps are why "just switch to the new Planner" turns out not to be a one-to-one move for most PMOs, and why this article walks the transfer map object by object instead of taking Microsoft's messaging at face value.

For teams that used Project Online as a straightforward task tracker, the migration is close to painless. For PMOs that relied on portfolio rollups, enterprise resource pools, governance workflows, or OData reporting, the gaps below are the ones that turn a planned two-week cutover into a quarter-long rebuild. This article gives you the honest, object-by-object comparison so you can decide whether Planner is sufficient or whether the migration needs a third-party destination instead.

SKU map: the Microsoft Project licensing 2026 decision tree walks through the four questions that point at the right tier.

A Brief History

Understanding the lineage helps explain the gaps:

• Microsoft Project (Desktop): The original, dating back to 1984. Full-featured desktop scheduling tool. Still available as Project Plan 3 (formerly Project Online Professional) and Plan 5 (formerly Project Online Premium).
• Microsoft Project Server: On-premises server for enterprise project management. Deprecated in favor of Project Online.
• Microsoft Project Online: Cloud-hosted version of Project Server, running on SharePoint Online. The enterprise PM solution for Microsoft 365. Retiring September 30, 2026 (the last of three Microsoft retirements happening in 2026).
• Microsoft Planner (Original): Lightweight Kanban-style task boards for Microsoft 365 groups. Think Trello inside Teams.
• Project for the Web: Microsoft's attempt at a modern, cloud-native PM tool using Dataverse. Simpler than Project Online.
• The New Microsoft Planner (2024): The unified product that combines Planner boards, Project for the Web schedules, and To Do tasks into one experience. This is what Microsoft positions as the successor.

The key insight: the new Planner inherits Project for the Web's architecture, not Project Online's. That distinction matters enormously.

Feature Comparison

Project Scheduling

Capability	Project Online	New Planner
Gantt chart	Yes (full-featured)	Yes (basic)
Task dependencies	FS, SS, FF, SF with lag	FS only, no lag
Critical path	Yes	No
Auto-scheduling	Yes (resource-aware)	Basic date shifting
Manual scheduling mode	Yes	No
Task calendars	Yes	No
Recurring tasks	Yes	No
Summary tasks / WBS	Yes (unlimited depth)	Yes (limited)
Baselines	Yes (11 baselines)	No
Earned Value Analysis	Yes	No
What-if scenarios	Yes (via Save As)	No

Verdict: If you use Project Online for complex scheduling with multiple dependency types, critical path analysis, or baselines, the new Planner is a significant downgrade.

Resource Management

Capability	Project Online	New Planner
Enterprise resource pool	Yes	No
Resource assignments	Yes (effort-driven)	Yes (simple)
Resource leveling	Yes (automatic)	No
Capacity planning	Yes	No
Timesheets	Yes	No
Cost rates / rate tables	Yes	No
Resource utilization reports	Yes	No

Verdict: The new Planner has no resource management capabilities beyond basic task assignment. If your PMO relies on the resource model Project Online provides, resource pools, capacity planning, or timesheets, Planner cannot replace it.

Portfolio & Governance

Capability	Project Online	New Planner
Portfolio views	Yes	No
Demand management	Yes	No
Project proposals / intake	Yes	No
Gate reviews / stage gates	Yes	No
Cross-project reporting	Yes (OData + Power BI)	Limited
Business drivers / prioritization	Yes	No
Change control	Yes (via workflows)	No

Verdict: Portfolio and governance capabilities don't exist in the new Planner. Enterprise PMOs will need either a third-party tool or custom Power Platform solutions.

Collaboration & Integration

Capability	Project Online	New Planner
Microsoft Teams integration	Yes	Yes (native)
SharePoint integration	Yes (deep)	Limited
Power BI integration	Yes (OData feeds)	Yes (Dataverse)
Power Automate / workflows	Yes	Yes
Email notifications	Yes	Yes
Co-authoring	No (check-out model)	Yes (real-time)
Mobile apps	Limited	Yes (good)
Copilot AI	No	Yes

Verdict: This is where the new Planner genuinely wins. Real-time collaboration, native Teams integration, Copilot AI, and modern mobile apps are all superior to Project Online's aging web experience.

Administration & Compliance

Capability	Project Online	New Planner
SSO / Conditional Access	Yes (Azure AD)	Yes (Entra ID)
Data residency	Yes	Yes (Dataverse)
Audit logs	Yes	Yes (via Purview)
Custom permissions	Yes (SharePoint-based)	Limited
Backup / restore	SharePoint backup	Dataverse backup
API access	OData + CSOM	Graph API + Dataverse

Verdict: Both products leverage Microsoft 365's security and compliance infrastructure. The new Planner's API story is more modern (Graph API vs. legacy CSOM/OData).

Project Online vs Power Platform: The Stack Underneath

The feature gaps above all trace back to one architectural fact: this is not an upgrade from one version to the next, it is a move between two different Microsoft stacks.

Project Online is the SharePoint stack. It runs on SharePoint Online: Project Web App (PWA) is a SharePoint site collection, permissions are SharePoint permission modes, governance workflows historically ran on SharePoint workflow engines, and reporting comes off the OData feed that Power BI and Excel consume. Everything your PMO customized over the years (enterprise custom fields, EPTs, PWA views, OData-driven reports) is an artifact of that stack.

The new Planner is the Power Platform stack. Its premium plans (inherited from Project for the Web) store data in Dataverse. Automation runs on Power Automate, extension happens through Power Apps, and reporting connects Power BI to Dataverse tables instead of an OData feed. Administration lives in the Power Platform admin center, and audit flows through Purview.

So when someone asks "Project Online vs Power Platform," the honest answer is: that is the actual comparison behind "Project Online vs Planner." You are not choosing between an old and new version of the same product; you are choosing whether to rebuild your PM operating model on Dataverse, and the rebuild cost is the hidden line item in that choice. The diagram below shows why nothing carries over automatically: the two stacks share no schema at any layer.

Project Online vs Power Platform, side by side

Dimension	Project Online (SharePoint stack)	Power Platform rebuild (Dataverse)
Scheduling	Native Gantt, all four dependency types, critical path, 11 baselines	Planner Premium's schedule runs on Project for the Web: FS dependencies only, no critical path, no baselines
Resource capacity	Enterprise resource pool, automatic leveling, capacity by role, timesheets	No native equivalent; capacity math has to be modeled by hand in a custom Dataverse table plus a Power BI report
Portfolio	Portfolio views, demand management, business drivers, stage gates out of the box	Not part of Planner Premium; requires a custom Power Apps portfolio app built on top of Dataverse
Reporting	OData feed with prebuilt Power BI report templates	Dataverse tables, but every existing report is rebuilt against the new schema; there is no drop-in template
Admin	SharePoint permission modes, PWA site collection administration	Power Platform admin center, environments, and DLP policy work; a genuinely different admin surface to learn
Build cost	Sunk. Already built, running, and paid for	New. Custom tables, Power Apps screens, Power Automate flows, and DLP policy work typically run low-to-mid five figures in internal or partner build hours before a single report matches what the OData feed gave you for free

Verdict: rebuild on Dataverse only if you were already investing in Power Platform for reasons beyond Project Online. If your organization has a Power Platform center of excellence, existing Dataverse environments, and citizen developers who can own a portfolio app, the rebuild is a reasonable extension of infrastructure you already pay for. Everyone else, meaning most mid-market PMOs evaluating this as a one-off migration, spends less money and less calendar time on a third-party tool that imports .mpp and OData directly and ships resource capacity, portfolio views, and reporting on day one instead of after a build project.

What the stack change means for your migration path

Because the stacks share no schema, nothing you built on the SharePoint side carries over automatically:

• Reports: every Power BI report reading the OData feed must be rebuilt against Dataverse tables (or your new tool's API). Before that feed goes away, run through the data extraction window so the source data for those reports is not the thing you lose first. Report rebuilds are the most commonly underestimated migration line item.
• Workflows: SharePoint-era governance flows are already gone (retired April 2, 2026) and Power Automate flows built against Project Online do not repoint to Dataverse; they get rebuilt.
• Custom fields and views: enterprise custom fields, lookup tables, and PWA views have no import path; they are remodeled by hand in the destination.
• Schedule data: exports (.mpp, Project XML, OData) remain your bridge whichever destination you pick; the Migration Considerations section below covers the mechanics per destination.

The stack change is also why the complete Project Online migration guide treats reports and workflows as their own migration workstreams instead of an afterthought: the data moves in days, the rebuilt operating layer around it is the part that takes weeks.

Who Can Stay with Planner?

The new Planner works well if your team:

• Uses Project Online as a task tracker: If you primarily create task lists, assign people, and track completion without complex scheduling, Planner handles this.
• Doesn't rely on dependencies beyond FS: If your projects are mostly sequential with simple finish-to-start relationships, Planner's basic dependencies suffice.
• Doesn't need resource management: If resource planning happens outside the PM tool (in spreadsheets or a separate system), losing the resource pool isn't a blocker.
• Values Teams integration: If your team lives in Microsoft Teams, Planner's native integration is genuinely excellent.
• Has simple reporting needs: If your stakeholders need basic project status, not portfolio-level analytics.

Who Needs Something Else?

You should evaluate third-party alternatives if:

• You use multiple dependency types: SS, FF, and SF dependencies are essential for complex schedules. Planner only supports FS.
• Critical path matters: If you need to identify and manage the critical path, Planner can't do it.
• You rely on baselines: Tracking planned vs. actual schedule and cost requires baseline capabilities that Planner lacks.
• Resource management is core: Enterprise resource pools, capacity planning, utilization tracking, and timesheets aren't available.
• You have governance requirements: Proposal pipelines, gate reviews, change control boards, and portfolio oversight need dedicated functionality.
• You manage 20+ projects: Portfolio-level views, cross-project reporting, and resource optimization across projects require enterprise PM capabilities.

Before you shortlist alternatives, work through the 35-item Project Online pre-migration inventory; tool selection is meaningfully different for a PMO with 120 schedules and custom fields than one with 30 simple task lists.

The Third Option: Desktop Client + Something Else

Some organizations are considering keeping the Microsoft Project Desktop Client (Plan 3 or Plan 5) for complex scheduling while using the new Planner or another tool for collaboration and tracking.

This can work, but has limitations:

• .mpp files aren't collaborative: One person edits at a time, others get a read-only copy
• No real-time status: The desktop client doesn't show live task updates from team members
• Sync is manual: Publishing to a server-based system was Project Online's job; without it, you're emailing .mpp files
• Cost: Project Plan 3 ($30/user/month) or Plan 5 ($55/user/month) is expensive for a disconnected desktop tool. For a defensible 3-year comparison, get the full cost breakdown for migrating off Project Online across license, labor, training, and integrations.

Running the Project Online Migration to Planner

Moving to Planner

If the new Planner fits your needs, Microsoft provides migration tools:

• Automatic migration: Microsoft has committed to migrating Project for the Web data automatically. Project Online data requires manual action.
• .mpp import: Limited. The new Planner can import basic task lists but loses advanced scheduling data.
• OData data: Export via OData feeds before retirement and recreate in Planner manually.

Moving to a Third-Party Tool

If you need enterprise PM capabilities, evaluate tools that support:

• .mpp file import: Preserves your existing project structure and schedules
• OData migration: Bulk import from Project Online's data feeds
• Familiar concepts: Gantt charts, dependencies, baselines, resource management

Onplana, for example, was built specifically for this migration path. It supports all four dependency types, baselines, resource management, and governance workflows (the features that Planner doesn't offer) while adding AI capabilities that neither Project Online nor Planner provide. You can see exactly what your existing schedules would look like after migrating to Onplana by running a sample .mpp through the free migration preview, and audit schedule quality before you migrate to surface the issues that cause most import failures.

See how Onplana compares →

Making Your Decision

Here's a simple decision framework:

Choose the new Microsoft Planner if:

• Your projects are simple (< 50 tasks, mostly sequential)
• You don't use critical path, baselines, or resource management
• Teams integration is your top priority
• You want to stay 100% within the Microsoft ecosystem
• Cost is a concern (Planner is included in M365)

Choose a third-party PM platform if:

• You manage complex schedules with multiple dependency types
• Resource management and capacity planning are essential
• You need portfolio-level views and governance
• Baseline tracking and earned value analysis matter
• You want AI-powered risk detection and planning

Consider a hybrid approach if:

• You want Microsoft desktop client for complex scheduling
• Plus a modern platform for collaboration, tracking, and reporting
• And you're willing to manage the sync between them

Whatever you choose, start evaluating now. September 2026 will arrive faster than you think, and a rushed migration is a risky migration.

Start a free Onplana account →

---

For more on the retirement timeline, read Microsoft Project Online End-of-Life: What You Need to Know in 2026. Ready to migrate? See our step-by-step migration guide.

If you're staying in the Microsoft ecosystem and exploring the new Planner / Project for the Web / To Do surfaces: Onplana imports from all three. The Microsoft Planner import + live sync guide covers the basic-tier path with one-click import and optional Graph webhook mirroring. The Project for the Web Premium import guide covers the Dataverse path that brings across full FS/SS/FF/SF dependencies, scheduled effort, and resource assignments (the schedule data Premium customers paid for). And the Microsoft To Do bi-directional sync guide covers per-user mirroring of assigned tasks to the user's phone, watch, and Outlook.

Microsoft Project Online™ is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Onplana is not affiliated with Microsoft.